Potential training breach?

[Apsaalooke]

I did, everyone has taken ownership bar El Chappo.

Taking ownership doesn't mean self flagellation and inviting severe sanctions for a minor breach. The crowds in Myers and the cafes that opened against state law in NSW are magnitudes higher risk than 8 guys kicking a footy within a few metres of each other with minimal infection risk Throw Hart under the bus if they have to, he's the problem. The AFL are more concerned about competitive advantage than anything else.

The police have basically said 'It's okay boys, don't do it again' but our hierarchy wants the club to be punished in any way the VFL see fit.

 

[hey shorty]

Taking ownership doesn't mean self flagellation and inviting severe sanctions for a minor breach. The crowds in Myers and the cafes that opened against state law in NSW are magnitudes higher risk than 8 guys kicking a footy within a few metres of each other with minimal infection risk Throw Hart under the bus if they have to, he's the problem. The AFL are more concerned about competitive advantage than anything else.

The police have basically said 'It's okay boys, don't do it again' but our hierarchy wants the club to be punished in any way the VFL see fit.

We broke AFL rules, whether we like them or not we did it.

 

[FullyBigKPro]

The rules are an absolute scam.

Just so sick of all the acquiescence.

These are fit young men in a private area posing 0 risk to anybody else.

If we even get a fine i will complete filthy.

The club needs to find some backbone and a pair REALLY quick.

 

[1970crow]

Why are the NRL teams in both NSW and Qld back training again together? Because they were granted exemptions.

Why were Andrew Forest and Kerry Stokes flying around Australia? Because they were granted exemptions.

The idea that state police and governments grant exemptions is and has been happening

Sure, but you wouldn’t apply to the police. You’d apply via the dept of health.

 

[1970crow]

It's amusing, I wasn't sure where it was going, but I don't think it's offensive.

At least he was doing housework.

I didn’t see any chemical in that bucket. As long as the water was scalding hot, he can still get a good result.

 

[Mego Red]

It's amusing, I wasn't sure where it was going, but I don't think it's offensive.

At least he was doing housework.

Not sure how that's funny. Using a woman as an inanimate object to complete housework?

 

[Mego Red]

The rules are an absolute scam.

Just so sick of all the acquiescence.

These are fit young men in a private area posing 0 risk to anybody else.

If we even get a fine i will complete filthy.

The club needs to find some backbone and a pair REALLY quick.

Yeah, they won't.

I don't think our club is any more or less competent than other clubs, but we're far more acquiescent.

 

[1970crow]

Yeah, they won't.

I don't think our club is any more or less competent than other clubs, but we're far more acquiescent.

You think all clubs are equally competent? In all departments as well? What leads to sustained periods near the top of the table, just a few years of outrageously good luck?

 

[ams4crows]

It's not just that the AFL can, it's that we will let them.

Once again, a decent chairman would already be making noise in the public that we'd look at legal action if the penalty was too harsh for a 15 minute hiccup.

Instead we pull down our pants and stand there, allowing our master to select their weapon of choice for the caning.

This has always been my issue with our management, we continually just lay down and take it, other clubs would make noise and publically say if club X did this and got Z punishment if it's any more than that we'll be taking action.

Do you think any Big Vic club, WCE or Syd would take this bullshit? Hell no, even Port would have Kochie on morning News saying it's a simple mistake no need to get up in arms about it.

 

[Deaneus!]

Not sure how that's funny. Using a woman as an inanimate object to complete housework?

It's funny/vaguely amusing because

- it's unexpected
- she's clearly finding it funny, allowing us the viewer to laugh along with the joke.

I'm sure there's a whole discussion to be had about gender roles and the like, but a woman appeared to give consent to use her own hair to mop a floor for a stupid tiktok video. No one was hurt, we can all move on, there's bigger fish to fry.

 

[lincsPJ]

It's funny/vaguely amusing because

- it's unexpected
- she's clearly finding it funny, allowing us the viewer to laugh along with the joke.

I'm sure there's a whole discussion to be had about gender roles and the like, but a woman appeared to give consent to use her own hair to mop a floor for a stupid tiktok video. No one was hurt, we can all move on, there's bigger fish to fry.

there’s the added element that it’s promoted by channel 7 in a desperate attempt to generate click KPIs

 

[Deaneus!]

there’s the added element that it’s promoted by channel 7 in a desperate attempt to generate click KPIs

doesn't make it right, but capitalism gonna capitalise

 

[Mego Red]

It's funny/vaguely amusing because

- it's unexpected
- she's clearly finding it funny, allowing us the viewer to laugh along with the joke.

I'm sure there's a whole discussion to be had about gender roles and the like, but a woman appeared to give consent to use her own hair to mop a floor for a stupid tiktok video. No one was hurt, we can all move on, there's bigger fish to fry.

Yeah, I don't want it to sound like I give a shit, and it's good that she's laughing along, I guess.

It felt weirdly bullying to me, but I'm happy for anything that happens this offseason to just go away.

 

[radiojake]

yeah it's weird and not something i'd do but otherwise harmless -

atleast he isn't creeping on twitch streamers

 

[Peter Doherty]

This has always been my issue with our management, we continually just lay down and take it, other clubs would make noise and publically say if club X did this and got Z punishment if it's any more than that we'll be taking action.

Do you think any Big Vic club, WCE or Syd would take this bullshit? Hell no, even Port would have Kochie on morning News saying it's a simple mistake no need to get up in arms about it.

This.

So many supporter are apathetic, the club are to it seems.

 

[Apsaalooke]

We broke AFL rules, whether we like them or not we did it.

I never said we didn't

 

[Peter Doherty]

I never said we didn't

It's like the Tippett saga. Rules were broken, no question. Did we do everything in our power to reduce the penalty?

 

[pjcrows]

The last 8 weeks has made it painfully obvious that AFL media is what drives the league, not the actual sport/matches. The sh*t we've seen dished up isn't actually dissimilar to what we get day in, day out when matches are being played. When the games start again, it will still all be about stupid faux/fabricated controversies that keep the sharks circling.

AFL's priority isn't the game, it's the money and exposure derived from it. I hope it eats itself and we get a breakaway/rogue elite competition in some form soon. I've had enough.

 

[hey shorty]

It's like the Tippett saga. Rules were broken, no question. Did we do everything in our power to reduce the penalty?

We will never know.

 

[Apsaalooke]

We will never know.

We do actually. Chapman was quoted as saying the AFL wanted more, they wanted sackings - probably John Reid, Trigg and maybe Chapman as they were the main protagonists. The club argued strongly against this and almost certainly agreed to higher draft and financial sanctions instead of sackings.

 

[hey shorty]

We do actually. Chapman was quoted as saying the AFL wanted more, they wanted sackings - probably John Reid, Trigg and maybe Chapman as they were the main protagonists. The club argued strongly against this and almost certainly agreed to higher draft and financial sanctions instead of sackings.

I think they'd have done that anyway, much like they did with the Bummers. Reid was gone anyway.

 

[Murray2503]

Taking ownership doesn't mean self flagellation and inviting severe sanctions for a minor breach. The crowds in Myers and the cafes that opened against state law in NSW are magnitudes higher risk than 8 guys kicking a footy within a few metres of each other with minimal infection risk Throw Hart under the bus if they have to, he's the problem. The AFL are more concerned about competitive advantage than anything else.

The police have basically said 'It's okay boys, don't do it again' but our hierarchy wants the club to be punished in any way the VFL see fit.

Competitive advantage from 5 mins of kicking between a few players. This whole story is a joke. Most of these players will not even play Afl for 2 years. Would be 4 years if Pyke was still in charge. The afl is using this story to sidetrack the public that getting a season done this year is going to be very difficult if not impossible.

 

[Murray2503]

We do actually. Chapman was quoted as saying the AFL wanted more, they wanted sackings - probably John Reid, Trigg and maybe Chapman as they were the main protagonists. The club argued strongly against this and almost certainly agreed to higher draft and financial sanctions instead of sackings.

Scumbags. Not the afl. Supporters are partially to blame. They should have demanded Chapman and his cronies stand down. If they didn't ppl should have boycotted games until they did. How dare they not take responsibility for the Tippett saga. The repercussions fell on supporters from the inept actions of this reprehensible bunch. Until Chapman is gone not interested.

 

[1970crow]

This has always been my issue with our management, we continually just lay down and take it, other clubs would make noise and publically say if club X did this and got Z punishment if it's any more than that we'll be taking action.

Do you think any Big Vic club, WCE or Syd would take this bullshit? Hell no, even Port would have Kochie on morning News saying it's a simple mistake no need to get up in arms about it.

It’s pretty simple and it actually came out of our footy dept review, but it’s a clubwide culture. Not a single person of influence within the entire organisation wouldn’t push for a lesser result for the team if it provided them benefit or certainty of tenure. Nobody would sacrifice anything for the team. The club exists to provide the board with influence and profile and to keep largely average administrative staff employed and overpaid.

The Port people are right, we’re a corporation. Not because of how we came about, but because of how we act each and every time there’s a defining moment. We put individuals ahead of team success. That’s why we underfund our footy dept and that’s why we don’t demand excellence from employees. We apologise for and support our failures. Until every decision is geared against team success, we’ll remain a corporation. We should go with empty chairs if we can’t get the right person for it. Mix up the chairs if it gets us the right people.

David Mackay is celebrated within those 4 walls because he built a 200+ game career being the least worst outside runner. We never tried anything else because we had a rolled gold 5/10 player that had tenure. That’s our entire club right there.

 

[1970crow]

We will never know.

I know, direct from a board member to a very highly respected poster here. And no, I’m not that poster. But I do fit the description, so I understand why you immediately thought of me.